The Commerce Department was wrong to equate captive power industries and utilities in its determination that an Indian aluminum exporter had received coal for less-than-adequate remuneration, the exporter said Jan. 5 in the Court of International Trade (Hindalco Industries Limited v. U.S., CIT # 23-00260)
toarticlessource documents
Search Primer
Term list: Separate terms with spaces, not commas or semicolons.
Multi-word term: Place inside quotes to ensure an exact match (e.g. "surrogate value").
Acronyms: Use all capital letters to ensure the search is not looking for that letter sequence instead. (e.g., CIT).
Required term: If a term must be included in any resulting articles, prefix it with a plus sign (e.g., CBP +ruling).
Excluded term: If a term should be excluded from any articles being found, prefix it with a minus sign (e.g., ruling -NY).
Simplest form: Use the simplest form of a term (e.g. "russian export control" instead of "russian export controls") or "entity list" instead of "entity listing" or "entity listed").
The Commerce Department on remand altered its analysis on whether an additional allotment of traceable carbon emissions credits in South Korea constituted a financial contribution. Submitting remand results to the Court of International Trade on Jan. 5, Commerce said that the South Korean government's decision to distribute additional free allowances of carbon emissions credits constitutes a "direct transfer of funds," rather than revenue forgone by the foreign government (Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00170).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 5 granted a motion to dismiss an appeal of a countervailing duty suit from the U.S. and petitioner Nucor Corp. The court lifted the stay in the case and dismissed the case after also considering the "non-participation" of exporters POSCO and Hyundai Steel Co. and the South Korean government (POSCO v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1576).
Russian exporter JSC Apatit took to the Court of International Trade to contest the Commerce Department's 2020-21 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on phosphate fertilizers from Russia, in which it received a 28.5% CVD rate (Joint Stock Company Apatit v. U.S., CIT # 23-00254).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
Indian exporter Kumar Industries took to the Court of International Trade to contest the adverse facts available rate it received for purportedly failing to cooperate to the best of its ability in the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on glycine from India. Filing a complaint on Jan. 1, Kumar said Commerce erred in using AFA due to the noncooperation of two entities which the agency said were related to Kumar (Kumar Industries v. United States, CIT # 23-00263).
The South Korean government's provision of port usage rights to exporter Hyundai Steel Co. is not a countervailable benefit since it is the repayment of a debt, Hyundai told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Dec. 29 opening brief. Because the port usage rights allowed Hyundai to "recoup its costs" from building the Incheon North Harbor port, the rights did not provide a "gift-like transfer of funds that provided an advantage or profit to Hyundai Steel," the brief said (Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1100).
A Turkish aluminum foil exporter Dec. 22 sought expedited consideration of a request for a voluntary remand by the Commerce Department and challenged concerns raised by domestic petitioners in a case involving a duty drawback adjustment on its products (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT # 21-00616).